Study: Military gays don't undermine unit cohesion

[Drift3r]

Isn't it about time we jump into the 21st century already? To prevent a segment of our population who are citizens from serving because they are gay and to force them to basically lie is just ridiculous. Other military forces around the world in 1st world nations have open policies towards gays and don't make it a issue. Why are we still making it a issue? If someone wants to serve our nation then they should do so irregardless of their gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. Especially if we pride ourselves as being the "land of the free and home of the brave".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...ca_st_pe/military_gays

Study: Military gays don't undermine unit cohesion

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 7 minutes ago

Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.

"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.

The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches. According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.

Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military ? Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.

"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie ? the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.[/b]

---

Sorry. Locked because the children could not discuss this topic without resorting to posting far too many bigoted cliches in posts at the far end of this thread.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

 

[Deptacon]

Im in the Army...I'm in a combat unit...I have been in combat....

It won't work.... I have seen lesser things break unit cohesion.... I am not a 'gay basher" at all... I have family members who are.... But like women in combat line units.... it just won't work.

Then again...its just my opinion

 

[PrinceofWands]

Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

 

[Drift3r]

I am prone to side with PirnceofWands as it being a character fault/lack of professionalism of non-gays and not the other way around. If Israel and most 1st world military forces can have an open policy and not have it effect the moral of their soldiers then I take it as being a "Good Ol Boyz club" mentality/culture that needs to be broken and removed from our armed forces.

Denying folks the right to serve because of their sexual orientation is just wrong. How can we hope to teach other nations anything about "freedom and democracy" if we ourselves can't break out of old and childish ways of thinking which prohibits a portion of our population from openly serving in our armed forces because of their sexual preference? I think it's time for us as a nation and our military to grow up and move away from this crap. Let's also be honest in pointing out that gays do serve in our armed forces and have done so for a very long time albeit in a very discrete manner. Pretending that they don't exist and that they aren't around is being ignorant, juvenile and discredits their service and sacrifices as military men and women.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

It only has a effect because their is an acceptable culture of homophobia that is allowed to run rampant and perpetuated through the denial that their are gays serving in our military. Gays are there and they are serving along side other soldiers in front line units. Just because they aren't open about it does not make them any less gay or any less of a capable soldier. The examples of armies from across the world which have an open policy and have no issues is an example which further illustrates how forcing a closed policy like we do only further perpetuates this form of bigotry. The issue is not with gay the soldiers learning to deal with serving within the military but with non-gay solders learning to realize that being a American is not a exclusive title that only belongs to a portion of people in our society.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

And people who are foolish enough to put aside the moral issues of who they kill and allow the government ot take over that decision for them, replaced by a powerful 'brotherhood'.

As far as this issue - they felt the same way about blacks, and yet are you lacking cohesion over that?

I'll agree there might be some 'growing' needed by some people, but as a civil rights issue, the price seems worth it and it should end up working. It has for other nations.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

It only has a effect because their is an acceptable culture of homophobia that is allowed to run rampant and perpetuated through the denial that their are gays serving in our military. Gays are there and they are serving along side other soldiers in front line units. Just because they aren't open about it does not make them any less gay or any less of a capable soldier. The examples of armies from across the world which have an open policy and have no issues is an example which further illustrates how forcing a closed policy like we do only further perpetuates this form of bigotry. The issue is not with gay the soldiers learning to deal with serving within the military but with non-gay solders learning to realize that being a American is not a exclusive title that only belongs to a portion of people in our society.

I nver once denied that fact... what i was trying to say was it is what it is....

Your entire first sentence is a huge assumption in many ways. Your assuming everyone is a homophobe.... which is not the case. You assume that if everyone was a homophobe that I and other leaders are suppose to what? Stand in front of our platoons and be like... If you hate or are afraid of anyone who is.... you no longer can be... you must like them now!?! It really isnt...that simple....

There is no denial. Most people don't care. Honestly I think 95% don't care.... I DO think most prefer not to know about it or see it. that is just my opinion though from what I see while serving...

I don't think commanders care much about what other Armies do.... as long as we can defeat any of them. Honestly I don't think it should be up to me...or you...or anyone but the commanders. Does a lawyer ask his shoe shiner how he should defend his client. Does a doctor ask the janitor how to treat someone? Then I don't think anyone should tell a general what makes his army more effective...that why we pay him a generals salary...to command a military effectively as he knows from his 20-40 years of experience.

You need perfect vision to fly...even though eyes can now be corrected... are we going to dictate to DOD they need to change there policy...

I can no longer go to Ranger school or SF Selection if I wanted to because I have a slight hearing loss from being in Iraq... Should anyone tell DOD they need to change their policy becuase they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to military medical qualifications??

General says he doesn't want openly gay individuals in the military.... For whatever reason. Maybe they really don't want to deal with any issues that do come up... or look soft to the rougher old school soldiers... I don't know.... It is what it is ....

Forcing a policy change isn't going to do anything but cause more problems in a military that has enough right now....

DOD WILL change they policy....eventually...

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

And people who are foolish enough to put aside the moral issues of who they kill and allow the government ot take over that decision for them, replaced by a powerful 'brotherhood'.

As far as this issue - they felt the same way about blacks, and yet are you lacking cohesion over that?

I'll agree there might be some 'growing' needed by some people, but as a civil rights issue, the price seems worth it and it should end up working. It has for other nations.

Don't turn my words around for your political punts.... It's way too cliche political threading

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Craig234
And people who are foolish enough to put aside the moral issues of who they kill and allow the government ot take over that decision for them, replaced by a powerful 'brotherhood'.

As far as this issue - they felt the same way about blacks, and yet are you lacking cohesion over that?

I'll agree there might be some 'growing' needed by some people, but as a civil rights issue, the price seems worth it and it should end up working. It has for other nations.

Don't turn my words around for your political punts.... It's way too cliche political threading

I certainly don't mean to do that, and if you show me anywhere I did, I"ll clarify it.

The text you bolded is completely my commentary, not yours, on your topic.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

I don't think commanders care much about what other Armies do.... as long as we can defeat any of them. Honestly I don't think it should be up to me...or you...or anyone but the commanders. Does a lawyer ask his shoe shiner how he should defend his client. Does a doctor ask the janitor how to treat someone? Then I don't think anyone should tell a general what makes his army more effective...that why we pay him a generals salary...to command a military effectively as he knows from his 20-40 years of experience.

You need perfect vision to fly...even though eyes can now be corrected... are we going to dictate to DOD they need to change there policy...

I can no longer go to Ranger school or SF Selection if I wanted to because I have a slight hearing loss from being in Iraq... Should anyone tell DOD they need to change their policy becuase they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to military medical qualifications??

General says he doesn't want openly gay individuals in the military.... For whatever reason. Maybe they really don't want to deal with any issues that do come up... or look soft to the rougher old school soldiers... I don't know.... It is what it is ....

Forcing a policy change isn't going to do anything but cause more problems in a military that has enough right now....

DOD WILL change they policy....eventually...

The policy on racial integration changed because the commander in chief ordered the change, and had it been to left to commanders, it'd likely have been a long time coming.

Do we well police officers the rules for entering people's homes? No, we should leave that to the police commanders.

Do we tell automakers what safety features are mandatory in cars? No, we should leave that to the companies.

Do we tell drug makers what drugs are safe enough for them to sell? No, we should leave that to the drug labs.

Sorry, I don't buy the 'leave it to the commanders' argument. It's commanders' job to make it work, to advise, not to decide what's right for the policy on such a broad issue.

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deptacon

I don't think commanders care much about what other Armies do.... as long as we can defeat any of them. Honestly I don't think it should be up to me...or you...or anyone but the commanders. Does a lawyer ask his shoe shiner how he should defend his client. Does a doctor ask the janitor how to treat someone? Then I don't think anyone should tell a general what makes his army more effective...that why we pay him a generals salary...to command a military effectively as he knows from his 20-40 years of experience.

You need perfect vision to fly...even though eyes can now be corrected... are we going to dictate to DOD they need to change there policy...

I can no longer go to Ranger school or SF Selection if I wanted to because I have a slight hearing loss from being in Iraq... Should anyone tell DOD they need to change their policy becuase they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to military medical qualifications??

General says he doesn't want openly gay individuals in the military.... For whatever reason. Maybe they really don't want to deal with any issues that do come up... or look soft to the rougher old school soldiers... I don't know.... It is what it is ....

Forcing a policy change isn't going to do anything but cause more problems in a military that has enough right now....

DOD WILL change they policy....eventually...

The policy on racial integration changed because the commander in chief ordered the change, and had it been to left to commanders, it'd likely have been a long time coming.

Do we well police officers the rules for entering people's homes? No, we should leave that to the police commanders.

Do we tell automakers what safety features are mandatory in cars? No, we should leave that to the companies.

Do we tell drug makers what drugs are safe enough for them to sell? No, we should leave that to the drug labs.

Sorry, I don't buy the 'leave it to the commanders' argument. It's commanders' job to make it work, to advise, not to decide what's right for the policy on such a broad issue.

I agree with you there you are right on that point. Racial integration took 40 years to work seamlessly. It did not work overnight...and it had problems for a long time. But yes it had to happen I agree..

I agree the military's policy on gays needs to change as well... but what I have been saying is it isn't as simple as batting the magic policy wand and walla...everyone is happy an skiping through fields in body armor...

I am just saying I don't think the military is ready for a 100% open policy. AND ESPECIALLY with some of the problems the military is dealing with now... it should be considered AT THIS TIME.... between other issues and the sheer fact I think it will still be several years before it is more widely acceptable in military circles.

Thing about military policy is everyone wants to stick there nose in it and say it has to be this that and the other ...... when most people don't understand anything about it. until shit really hits the fan and someone really has to make a true unreversable no second chance military decision...and we have already chased the 3 best military men out the military to handle it because of retarded policy to appease someone....and then we are stuck with the #4 man making that decision or coming up with a "lack of a plan...plan" Good people, good leaders... are chased out of the army everyday by the excessive bureaucratic policy making that has infested the military.... It is a MAJOR problem. Thats why I advocate the leave it to the commanders approach... I am not saying its perfect... but it simplifies things for someone like me on the ground.

Just one example of current problems with the military

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

I agree with you there you are right on that point. Racial integration took 40 years to work seamlessly. It did not work overnight...and it had problems for a long time. But yes it had to happen I agree..

I agree the military's policy on gays needs to change as well... but what I have been saying is it isn't as simple as batting the magic policy wand and walla...everyone is happy an skiping through fields in body armor...

I am just saying I don't think the military is ready for a 100% open policy. AND ESPECIALLY with some of the problems the military is dealing with now... it should be considered AT THIS TIME.... between other issues and the sheer fact I think it will still be several years before it is more widely acceptable in military circles.

Thing about military policy is everyone wants to stick there nose in it and say it has to be this that and the other ...... when most people don't understand anything about it. until shit really hits the fan and someone really has to make a true unreversable no second chance military decision...and we have already chased the 3 best military men out the military to handle it because of retarded policy to appease someone....and then we are stuck with the #4 man making that decision or coming up with a "lack of a plan...plan" Good people, good leaders... are chased out of the army everyday by the excessive bureaucratic policy making that has infested the military.... It is a MAJOR problem. Thats why I advocate the leave it to the commanders approach... I am not saying its perfect... but it simplifies things for someone like me on the ground.

Just one example of current problems with the military

I understand your point, and while my basic position is 'not one more day of unjustified wrong policy', I am open to some flexibility for practical reasons if justified.

If they need 6 months, a year, 2 years ok, but it shouldn't just be 'as soon as they decide they want to'.

 

[lupi]

Seeing how the number of openly gay members in the military probably hovers around a sum total of zero, I'm sure this study has great emphirical evidence.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

Most units in the Army aren't combat units. I was active duty for 5 years and didn't have to do most the stuff you mention. You have to have people to fix your equipment, cook your meals, do your medical and dental work, get you your supplies, etc. I knew people from 90 - 95 that were gay and they served just as well as everyone else. No one in the different units said anything and all was well. It is far past time that these bigoted policies go the way of the dinosaur.

 

[Darwin333]

Shrug. As long as they can do their job then I could care less. Wouldn't the Navy be a better fit for them though?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deptacon

I don't think commanders care much about what other Armies do.... as long as we can defeat any of them. Honestly I don't think it should be up to me...or you...or anyone but the commanders. Does a lawyer ask his shoe shiner how he should defend his client. Does a doctor ask the janitor how to treat someone? Then I don't think anyone should tell a general what makes his army more effective...that why we pay him a generals salary...to command a military effectively as he knows from his 20-40 years of experience.

You need perfect vision to fly...even though eyes can now be corrected... are we going to dictate to DOD they need to change there policy...

I can no longer go to Ranger school or SF Selection if I wanted to because I have a slight hearing loss from being in Iraq... Should anyone tell DOD they need to change their policy becuase they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to military medical qualifications??

General says he doesn't want openly gay individuals in the military.... For whatever reason. Maybe they really don't want to deal with any issues that do come up... or look soft to the rougher old school soldiers... I don't know.... It is what it is ....

Forcing a policy change isn't going to do anything but cause more problems in a military that has enough right now....

DOD WILL change they policy....eventually...

The policy on racial integration changed because the commander in chief ordered the change, and had it been to left to commanders, it'd likely have been a long time coming.

Do we well police officers the rules for entering people's homes? No, we should leave that to the police commanders.

Do we tell automakers what safety features are mandatory in cars? No, we should leave that to the companies.

Do we tell drug makers what drugs are safe enough for them to sell? No, we should leave that to the drug labs.

Sorry, I don't buy the 'leave it to the commanders' argument. It's commanders' job to make it work, to advise, not to decide what's right for the policy on such a broad issue.

I agree with you there you are right on that point. Racial integration took 40 years to work seamlessly. It did not work overnight...and it had problems for a long time. But yes it had to happen I agree..

I agree the military's policy on gays needs to change as well... but what I have been saying is it isn't as simple as batting the magic policy wand and walla...everyone is happy an skiping through fields in body armor...

I am just saying I don't think the military is ready for a 100% open policy. AND ESPECIALLY with some of the problems the military is dealing with now... it should be considered AT THIS TIME.... between other issues and the sheer fact I think it will still be several years before it is more widely acceptable in military circles.

Thing about military policy is everyone wants to stick there nose in it and say it has to be this that and the other ...... when most people don't understand anything about it. until shit really hits the fan and someone really has to make a true unreversable no second chance military decision...and we have already chased the 3 best military men out the military to handle it because of retarded policy to appease someone....and then we are stuck with the #4 man making that decision or coming up with a "lack of a plan...plan" Good people, good leaders... are chased out of the army everyday by the excessive bureaucratic policy making that has infested the military.... It is a MAJOR problem. Thats why I advocate the leave it to the commanders approach... I am not saying its perfect... but it simplifies things for someone like me on the ground.

Just one example of current problems with the military

Maybe not your generation, but the next won't have a problem with it. I'm sure there were soldiers like you that felt the same about blacks. I understand it may be a cultural issue I doubt you'd feel the same way if you actually knew the person rather than just their sexual orientation.

 

[piasabird]

All gay sexual activity is still illegal under military law. This forces gays to live in a kind of closet so to speak and not able to express their gay personality. I dont see how this is good for them.

 

[kage69]

Worked for Alexander the Great and the Macedonians, also the Spartans.

Male Macedonians were largely bi-sexual, at least there wasn't a taboo against recreational sex between comrades. The Spartans, I'm not so sure about. Never read anything concerning homosexuality from Sparta, but then it's ancient Greece - so who knows for sure. Regardless, I think the example you might have been looking for was the fighting force from Thebes.
There were more Thebians at Thermopolae than Spartans if I recall, and all of them were gay. They did not retreat and did not take prisoners.



I'm all for more gays in the military - maybe having some fabulous squad mates on stand by will result in fewer female enlisted being raped and sexually harassed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bush hired people to "study" Saddam to get a given outcome.
Clinton hired people to "study" how gays don't affect the military to get a given outcome.

Pot meet kettle.
Find someone without an agenda and have another look.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

Oh, so you mean a guy like this?

 

[Butterbean]

That group and its "study" are a total joke. The Michael D. Palm Center was formerly known as the "Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military". It's a homosexual group that's only concerned with forcing homosexuality into the military: " This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years?usually by releasing or promoting various faux ?studies? that cannot withstand close scrutiny. "

http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287

Most half legit polls of military people show around 75% do not support changing policy for homosexuals - even less support it it when informed of the "sensitivity" training (brainwashing) that would ensue should anyone not be happy with homosexuality being forced on them.

With the exploding epidemics of MRSA and VRE in homosexual populations it would be a crime to encourage a disease multiplying behavior in the close ranks of the military.

"This is the horror scenario," she said. "We have very little time left."
Dr Perdreau-Remington on MRSA/VRE

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...08/01/15/MNUKUDB6D.DTL


As sensible people know "homophobia" is no reason to justify changes in the military because its just a pollitical tool designed to intimidate people from their common sense. As former APA president Nicholas Cummings said ""'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda. Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

Cummings also stated regarding that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible." So we can put away our little studies from the APA as well as the Michale Palm study.

The fact is the military is still moderatlay functional and the liberals and their "special interest" groups cant stand it. It still has a shadow left of a masculine ethic and the feminized left resent it deeply. They would like nothing more than to turn the military into a play are for their little sensitivity trainings, mind screws and all the insane politically correct red tape that will doubtlessly ensue.

Comparing the US to Israel is not wise because military is compulsory in Israel and not in the US. Israels's military has also gone downhill a great since the 90's (when homosexual were allowed openly) and Lebanon woke people up to how bad its become.

Liberalism destroys everything it touches if not restrained. Homosexual political groups only care about themselves and the changes they want forced.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
That group and its "study" are a total joke. The Michael D. Palm Center was formerly known as the "Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military". It's a homosexual group that's only concerned with forcing homosexuality into the military: " This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years?usually by releasing or promoting various faux ?studies? that cannot withstand close scrutiny. "

http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287

Most half legit polls of military people show around 75% do not support changing policy for homosexuals - even less support it it when informed of the "sensitivity" training (brainwashing) that would ensue should anyone not be happy with homosexuality being forced on them.

With the exploding epidemics of MRSA and VRE in homosexual populations it would be a crime to encourage a disease multiplying behavior in the close ranks of the military.

"This is the horror scenario," she said. "We have very little time left."
Dr Perdreau-Remington on MRSA/VRE

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...08/01/15/MNUKUDB6D.DTL


As sensible people know "homophobia" is no reason to justify changes in the military because its just a pollitical tool designed to intimidate people from their common sense. As former APA president Nicholas Cummings said ""'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda. Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

Cummings also stated regarding that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible." So we can put away our little studies from the APA as well as the Michale Palm study.

The fact is the military is still moderatlay functional and the liberals and their "special interest" groups cant stand it. It still has a shadow left of a masculine ethic and the feminized left resent it deeply. They would like nothing more than to turn the military into a play are for their little sensitivity trainings, mind screws and all the insane politically correct red tape that will doubtlessly ensue.

Comparing the US to Israel is not wise because military is compulsory in Israel and not in the US. Israels's military has also gone downhill a great since the 90's (when homosexual were allowed openly) and Lebanon woke people up to how bad its become.

Liberalism destroys everything it touches if not restrained. Homosexual political groups only care about themselves and the changes they want forced.

I love the smell of bigotry in the morning.

You really need to get off your hobby horse with regard to the APA. I know you can't resist riding it every time this topic comes up no matter how many people/times you are defeated in debate about it.

While I agree that the study is biased based on the who supported its creation I don't disagree with the conclusion, which has been obvious to pretty much every western nation for some time.

There are gays in the military already, there have been since the thing was founded and have been in every military force EVER fielded in the history of the planet. They can fire an M16 or drop cluster bombs just as well as their straight counterparts (and do). Many gays are already known to their units and the "masculine ethic" hasn't collapsed nor would it if DADT was removed and gays allowed to serve openly.

If Israel was as weak as you claim the Arab nations would have tried to roll over them again. Though I think most of them are happy with only receiving a couple titanic ass kicking's every century few decades. What happened in the most recent Lebanon war was a political problem more than anything.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
That group and its "study" are a total joke. The Michael D. Palm Center was formerly known as the "Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military". It's a homosexual group that's only concerned with forcing homosexuality into the military: " This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years?usually by releasing or promoting various faux ?studies? that cannot withstand close scrutiny. "

http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287

Most half legit polls of military people show around 75% do not support changing policy for homosexuals - even less support it it when informed of the "sensitivity" training (brainwashing) that would ensue should anyone not be happy with homosexuality being forced on them.

With the exploding epidemics of MRSA and VRE in homosexual populations it would be a crime to encourage a disease multiplying behavior in the close ranks of the military.

"This is the horror scenario," she said. "We have very little time left."
Dr Perdreau-Remington on MRSA/VRE

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...08/01/15/MNUKUDB6D.DTL


As sensible people know "homophobia" is no reason to justify changes in the military because its just a pollitical tool designed to intimidate people from their common sense. As former APA president Nicholas Cummings said ""'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda. Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

Cummings also stated regarding that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible." So we can put away our little studies from the APA as well as the Michale Palm study.

The fact is the military is still moderatlay functional and the liberals and their "special interest" groups cant stand it. It still has a shadow left of a masculine ethic and the feminized left resent it deeply. They would like nothing more than to turn the military into a play are for their little sensitivity trainings, mind screws and all the insane politically correct red tape that will doubtlessly ensue.

Comparing the US to Israel is not wise because military is compulsory in Israel and not in the US. Israels's military has also gone downhill a great since the 90's (when homosexual were allowed openly) and Lebanon woke people up to how bad its become.

Liberalism destroys everything it touches if not restrained. Homosexual political groups only care about themselves and the changes they want forced.

When I was in the military we had several people whom everyone knew were gay. Nobody cared. It didn't undermine unit cohesion, it didn't destroy our 'masculine ethic', it didn't do anything.

Do you realize how dumb you sound when you write things like this?

 

[Robor]

What's that they say about those who are so hard-core outspoken against homosexuality? :laugh: